DOCSLIB.ORG

Hilda Koopman, UCLA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hilda Koopman, UCLA Towards a Typology of Morpheme Orders Hilda Koopman, UCLA These four lectures are organized around the question if the interface of the syntax and the phonology can be taken to be direct as far as morpheme ordering is concerned. The answer to this question depends on specific assumptions about the syntactic representations and derivations. As far as morpheme ordering is concerned, the interface must be direct in Kayne (1994)’s Antisymmetry framework 1. In frameworks that assume syntactic head movement underlying word formation, as in Distributed Morphology, 2, this cannot be correct as there are cases that cannot be derived by head movement. This means that frameworks (can) differ substantially with respect to the specific syntactic representations and derivations that are taken to underly morpheme ordering. As a result, mismatches arise between the syntactic representations and linear morpheme orders in some frameworks but not in others. Such mismatches are traditionally taken to motivate postsyntactic readjustment rules –these have been part of the analytical tool kit since the earliest days –, but rarely lead to questioning the underlying syntactic derivations, or questioning whether such tools are indeed required, or even possible parts of UG. This raises the following questions: Can we distinguish between different approaches to syntax on the basis of empirical predictions that • are made about the typology of word shapes? Do documented mismatches arise because we have the wrong syntax, or is the syntax underlying them • in fact sound and well established? Do we need local dislocation to account for morpheme orders? • Can we motivate, support, and implement syntactic analysis for cases where local dislocation is re- • quired, and sketch a reasonable path for language acquisition on the basis of easily accessible primary data? I have pursued ideas to make these questions tractable, by proposing a typology of possible morpheme orders based on what we know about the typology of syntactic word order patterns that distinguishes different syntactic implementations. The point of departure is the vibrant research that has emerged around Cinque (2005a)’s modeling of Greenberg’s Universal 20 (U20). U20 type patterns turn out to (i) generalize to many hierarchical syntactic/semantic domains (i.e. given an independently motivated (universal) syntactic/semantic hierarchy, only certain linearization patterns are attested), (ii) show a fundamental left right asymmetry: the linear order before the lexical category is invariant, but orders after the lexical head are more variable (yet not everything goes), and (iii) can be accounted for (I assume) by relying on antisymmetry, phrasal movements, in conjunction with a restricted set of parameters. If there is one computational system underlying orders in syntax and morphology, we derive, through • generalized U20, predictions about a basic typology of morphological patterns (which patterns are expected to arise, and which patterns are expected to be unattested.) These predictions differ from frameworks without antisymmetry (or relying on head movement for word formation), and hence can be empirically tested. In general, in a single computational system, we expect to find the same word order patterns (as well • as unattested patterns) in the ”syntax” and the ”morphology”. I pursue these predictions through various case studies (adapted since Neil’s class is unfortunately canceled. 1See amongst others Koopman and Szabolcsi (2000), Julien (2002), Kayne (2005), Koopman (2005)), Kayne (2010) Koopman (2014, 2017 (2015,?); Nanosyntax (Starke (2010), Caha (2009). 2See amongst others Halle and Marantz (1993), Embick and Noyer (2007), Harley (2012), Bobaljik (2011) Bobaljik (2012), Arregi and Nevins (2012) 1 1. June 13: Background- Expected typology/typologies, assumptions, guiding principles and how-to-test the typology: a case study of Chichewa 2. June 14: Chichewa continued.. Wolof case study 3. June 15. Local dislocation motivated? (can we construct a reasonable syntactic analysis that satisfies the research guidelines?) A case study of Huave 4. June 16 (cf Embick and Noyer (2007))? Can phonology dictate morpheme order (as proposed for mobile affixes in Huave by Kim (2010)). Various case studies On local dislocation (continued)– 5. June 16: An evaluation of *213: problems and possible solutions; broadening the word order typology to second position phenomena A case of syntax semantics mismatch in English – and implications for a syntactic treatment of the ”exceptional” placement of German zu. 2 Topics on the interfaces of syntax with morphology and syntax with semantics ACTL-June 13 Hilda Koopman UCLA [email protected] Some background and general plan About me: a theoretical linguist and a fieldworker. These two different aspects interact continuously in my research. I like working on languages from the ground up • paying close attention to linear order and every minute detail that I can find. • using strong theoretical hypotheses that I think might make the most sense any given time (even if • they go against the received wisdom). testing these on different languages. I stick with them as long as they give me results. • I like analyses that surprise me: they must extent beyond the patterns of an individual language, and • yield Insight into linguistic variation, or new insights into old problems/ (what is uniform and what is variable) Theoretical Assumptions underlying my work: Antisymmetry; Kayne (1994), LCA. One Syntax: Merge (External, Internal), atoms: small, correspond to single features (not feature • complexes); strictly derivational (bottom up); ”selection” (cooccurrence) locally satisfied under sister- hood (Spec head Koopman (2006)ward Agree) now called upward agree); extension condition; outputs phrases (cyclic spell out, and interpretation), phrases are further input to Merge, etc. Hypothesis: There is one structure building algorithm in UG: (binary) Merge • Not: narrow syntax and postsyntactic syntax. • Not: atoms:feature complexes • Not: morphology follows all syntax Arregi and Nevins (2012) • Not: atoms of syntax are ”words”, or ”ordered complex feature bundles”. • Not: the output of syntax are words (=X-zeros). Spell out domains are phrases forming ”phonological • domains”/ phases . Theme of the course Can syntax and morphology be unified (or to what extent) • .. that there may be no fundamental difference between morphological and syntactic composition is an old idea ... but whether they can be be truly unified is generally been taken to be undesirable or impossible... – Syntax and morphology: Separate components or not? 3 3For an overview that that there is no fundamental difference between morphological and syntactic composition, see (see Sportiche, Koopman, and Stabler (2013)chapters2and12) 3 – Within frameworks in which there is no morphology-free syntactic representation4, frameworks di→ffer as to the syntactic derivations they assume: Distributed Morphology (DM) attributes a major, but not exclusive, role to the syntax.5 ∗ From ”Syntax all the way down” (Halle and Marantz (1993)) to a fully separate and highly articulated postsyntactic morphological component Arregi and Nevins (2012). Antisymmetry 6 Morphology and syntax are unified. Linear order is read offdirectly from ∗ the syntactic output. Nanosyntax Antisymmetry and phrasal spell out/ peeling/ lexical insertion. 7 Representation Theory Decomposition, layers of representations, level of embedding con- ∗ jecture. Special (non-movement) mechanism to relate levels of representation Williams (2003). – To what extent can the interface of the syntax with the phonology be direct? ..Obstacles: reordering rules (Merge, local dislocation), prosodic structure, second position phenomena Halpern (1995), metathesis of morphemes, .. – Can we decide between competing theories on the basis of empirical evidence? Restrict the question to morpheme ordering. → – if so, how? make this question tractable (syntax and morphology: same typology of order patterns) Linear→ orders reflect the syntactic hierarchy (Antisymmetry). vs LCA in phonology (Chom- sky1993), or a separate linearization algorithm (cyclic linearization (cf Fox and Pesetsky (2004))) 0.1 Towards a direct interface of syntax and phonology (1) Is there a need for postsyntactic reorderings (in morphology)? ..Depends to a large extent on the assumptions one makes about the syntactic representations. As far as morpheme ordering is concerned, the different frameworks of Distributed Morphology8 and Kayne’s (1994) Antisymmetry 9 differ substantially with respect to the specific syntactic representations and derivations that are supposed to underly morpheme ordering. As a result, mismatches may arise between the syntactic representations and linear morpheme orders in some frameworks but not in others. Such mismatches, when they arise, are traditionally taken to motivate postsyntactic readjustment rules, but rarely lead to questioning the underlying syntactic syntax. ”Simplest Syntax is best” rules the field. Similar remarks could be made about syntax semantics mismatches. 4The datapatterns discussed in Stumpe 2002,Stump (2006)remaintobeintegrated:thediscussiongoesbeyondthecurrent lectures 5 Halle and Marantz (1993), Embick and Noyer (2007), Harley (2012), Bobaljik (2015) Bobaljik (2012).. Arregi and Nevins (2012),... 6Kayne (1994). Kayne (2010), Julien (2002), antisymmetry and phrasal movement Koopman (1996), Koopman and Szabolcsi (2000), Koopman (2005, 2014, 2017 (2015), Disciullo, among others. 7Starke
Load more

Recommended publications
  • When Linearity Prevails Over Hierarchy in Syntax
    When linearity prevails over hierarchy in syntax Jana Willer Golda, Boban Arsenijevic´b, Mia Batinic´c, Michael Beckerd, Nermina Cordalijaˇ e, Marijana Kresic´c, Nedzadˇ Lekoe, Franc Lanko Marusiˇ cˇf, Tanja Milicev´ g, Natasaˇ Milicevi´ c´g, Ivana Mitic´b, Anita Peti-Stantic´h, Branimir Stankovic´b, Tina Suligojˇ f, Jelena Tusekˇ h, and Andrew Nevinsa,1 aDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London WC1N 1PF, United Kingdom; bDepartment for Serbian language, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Nis,ˇ Nisˇ 18000, Serbia; cDepartment of Linguistics, University of Zadar, Zadar 23000, Croatia; dDepartment of Linguistics, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-4376; eDepartment of English, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo 71000, Bosnia and Herzegovina; fCenter for Cognitive Science of Language, University of Nova Gorica, Nova Gorica 5000, Slovenia; gDepartment of English Studies, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad 21000, Serbia; hDepartment of South Slavic languages and literatures, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, Zagreb 10000, Croatia Edited by Barbara H. Partee, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, MA, and approved November 27, 2017 (received for review July 21, 2017) Hierarchical structure has been cherished as a grammatical univer- show cases of agreement based on linear order, called “attrac- sal. We use experimental methods to show where linear order is tion,” with the plural complement of noun phrases (e.g., the key also a relevant syntactic relation. An identical methodology and to the cabinets are missing), a set of findings later replicated in design were used across six research sites on South Slavic lan- comprehension and across a variety of other languages and con- guages.
    [Show full text]
  • Pronouns and Prosody in Irish&Sast;
    PRONOUNS AND PROSODY IN IRISH* RYAN BENNETT Yale University EMILY ELFNER University of British Columbia JAMES MCCLOSKEY University of California, Santa Cruz 1. BACKGROUND One of the stranger properties of human language is the way in which it creates a bridge between two worlds which ought not be linked, and which seem not to be linked in any other species—a bridge linking the world of concepts, ideas and propositions with the world of muscular gestures whose outputs are perceivable. Because this link is made in us we can do what no other creature can do: we can externalize our internal and subjective mental states in ways that expose them to scrutiny by others and by ourselves. The existence of this bridge depends in turn on a system or systems which can take the complex structures used in cognition (hierarchical and recursive) and translate them step by step into the kinds of representations that our motor system knows how to deal with. In the largest sense, our goal in the research reported on here is to help better understand those systems and in particular the processes of serialization and flattening that make it possible to span the divide between the two worlds. In doing this, we study something which is of central importance to the question of what language is and how it might have emerged in our species. Establishing sequential order is, obviously, a key part of the process of serialization. And given the overall perspective just suggested, it is *Four of the examples cited in this paper (examples (35), (38a), (38b), and (38c)) have sound-files associated with them.
    [Show full text]
  • Cohesion, Coherence and Temporal Reference from an Experimental Corpus Pragmatics Perspective Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics
    Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics Cristina Grisot Cohesion, Coherence and Temporal Reference from an Experimental Corpus Pragmatics Perspective Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics Editor-in-Chief Jesús Romero-Trillo, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain Reviews Editor Dawn Knight, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK Advisory Editorial Board Karin Aijmer, University of Gothenburg, Sweden Belén Díez-Bedmar, Universidad de Jaén, Spain Ronald Geluykens, University of Oldenburg, Germany Anna Gladkova, University of Sussex and University of Brighton, UK Stefan Gries: University of California, Santa Barbara, USA Leo Francis Hoye, University of Hong Kong, China Jingyang Jiang, Zhejiang University, China Anne O’Keefe, Mary Immaculate College, Limerick, Ireland Silvia Riesco-Bernier, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, University of Ghent, Belgium Esther Vázquez y del Árbol, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain Anne Wichmann, University of Central Lancashire, UK More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11559 Cristina Grisot Cohesion, Coherence and Temporal Reference from an Experimental Corpus Pragmatics Perspective Cristina Grisot Department of Linguistics University of Geneva Geneva 4, Switzerland Published with the support of the Swiss National Science Foundation ISSN 2213-6819 ISSN 2213-6827 (electronic) Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics ISBN 978-3-319-96751-6 ISBN 978-3-319-96752-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96752-3 Library of Congress
    [Show full text]
  • Graph-Based Syntactic Word Embeddings
    Graph-based Syntactic Word Embeddings Ragheb Al-Ghezi Mikko Kurimo Aalto University Aalto University [email protected] [email protected] Abstract We propose a simple and efficient framework to learn syntactic embeddings based on information derived from constituency parse trees. Using biased random walk methods, our embeddings not only encode syntactic information about words, but they also capture contextual information. We also propose a method to train the embeddings on multiple constituency parse trees to ensure the encoding of global syntactic representation. Quantitative evaluation of the embeddings shows competitive performance on POS tagging task when compared to other types of embeddings, and qualitative evaluation reveals interesting facts about the syntactic typology learned by these embeddings. 1 Introduction Distributional similarity methods have been the standard learning representation in NLP. Word represen- tations methods such as Word2vec, GloVe, and FastText [1, 2, 3] aim to create vector representation to words from other words or characters that mutually appear in the same context. The underlying premise is that ”a word can be defined by its company” [4]. For example, in the sentences, ”I eat an apple every day” and ”I eat an orange every day”, the words ’orange’ and ’apple’ are similar as they share similar contexts. Recent approaches have proposed a syntax-based extension to distributional word embeddings to in- clude functional similarity in the word vectors by leveraging the power of dependency parsing[5] [6]. Syntactic word embeddings have been shown to be advantageous in specific NLP tasks such as ques- tion type classification[7], semantic role labeling[8], part-of-speech tagging[6], biomedical event trigger identification[9], and predicting brain activation patterns [10].
    [Show full text]
  • The Non-Hierarchical Nature of the Chomsky Hierarchy-Driven Artificial-Grammar Learning
    The Non-Hierarchical Nature of the Chomsky Hierarchy-Driven Artificial-Grammar Learning Shiro Ojima & Kazuo Okanoya Recent artificial-grammar learning (AGL) paradigms driven by the Choms- ky hierarchy paved the way for direct comparisons between humans and animals in the learning of center embedding ([A[AB]B]). The AnBn grammars used by the first generation of such research lacked a crucial property of center embedding, where the pairs of elements are explicitly matched ([A1 [A2 B2] B1]). This type of indexing is implemented in the second-generation AnBn grammars. This paper reviews recent studies using such grammars. Against the premises of these studies, we argue that even those newer AnBn grammars cannot test the learning of syntactic hierarchy. These studies nonetheless provide detailed information about the conditions under which human adults can learn an AnBn grammar with indexing. This knowledge serves to interpret recent animal studies, which make surprising claims about animals’ ability to handle center embedding. Keywords: language evolution; animal cognition; syntactic hierarchy; arti- ficial grammar; center embedding 1. Center Embedding and AnBn Grammars One of the properties that make humans unique among animals is language, which has several components including phonology, lexicon, and syntax. It has been debated how much of each of these components is shared between humans and non-human animals (Markman & Abelev 2004, Yip 2006). The component of syntax, which has been receiving much attention in the field of comparative cognition, instantiates linguistic knowledge describable in terms of a finite set of rules. That set of rules is called a grammar. Fitch & Hauser’s (2004) seminal work tried to test which type of grammar non-human primates can learn.
    [Show full text]
  • Functional Categories and Syntactic Theory 141 LI02CH08-Rizzi ARI 5 December 2015 12:12
    LI02CH08-Rizzi ARI 5 December 2015 12:12 ANNUAL REVIEWS Further Click here to view this article's online features: • Download figures as PPT slides • Navigate linked references • Download citations Functional Categories • Explore related articles • Search keywords and Syntactic Theory Luigi Rizzi1,2 and Guglielmo Cinque3 1Departement´ de Linguistique, UniversitedeGen´ eve,` CH-1211 Geneve,` Switzerland 2Centro Interdipartimentale di Studi Cognitivi sul Linguaggio–Dipartimento di Scienze Sociali, Politiche e Cognitive (CISCL-DISPOC), Universita` di Siena, Siena 53100, Italy 3Dipartimento di Studi Linguistici, Ca’ Foscari University, Venice 30123, Italy Annu. Rev. Linguist. 2016. 2:139–63 Keywords The Annual Review of Linguistics is online at functional heads, Universal Grammar, syntactic variation, cartography, linguist.annualreviews.org lexicon This article’s doi: by Mr. Guglielmo Cinque on 01/27/16. For personal use only. 10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040827 Abstract Copyright c 2016 by Annual Reviews. The distinction between lexical and functional elements plays a major role in All rights reserved Annu. Rev. Linguist. 2016.2:139-163. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org current research in syntax and neighboring aspects of the study of language. In this article, we review the motivations of a progressive shift of emphasis from lexical to functional elements in syntactic research: the identification of the functional lexicon as the locus of the triggering of syntactic actions and of syntactic variation, and the description and analysis of the complexity of functional structures in cartographic studies. The latter point leads us to illustrate current cartographic research and to present the maps created in the study of clauses and phrases. The maps of CP, IP, and other phrasal categories all involve a richly articulated functional sequence.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Connections Between Linguistic and Musical Syntax
    COGNITIVE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN LINGUISTIC AND MUSICAL SYNTAX AN OPTIMALITY THEORETIC APPROACH by LAURA BREWER (Under the Direction of Keith Langston) ABSTRACT Language and music share empirically validated syntactic similarities that suggest these modalities may have important cognitive connections. These findings challenge the current view of the human language faculty as encapsulated from other cognitive domains. Patel (2008) emphasizes the distinction between the representational knowledge base of a domain (competence) and the syntactic processes that are employed during access and integration of this knowledge, proposing that the processing resources are shared between the two domains while the knowledge bases remain separate. I propose that the shared processing resources for linguistic and musical syntax are characterized predominantly by the constraint evaluation and optimization mechanisms of Optimality Theory. The goal of this endeavor will be to explore the OT character of musical syntax in support of the claim that a unified theory can reflect cognitive overlap in the language and music modalities and to encourage future refinement of this theoretical framework. INDEX WORDS: Optimality Theory (OT), syntax, Western tonal music. modularity, weighted constraint, Generative Theory of Tonal Music (GTTM), competence, performance, processing COGNITIVE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN LINGUISTIC AND MUSICAL SYNTAX AN OPTIMALITY THEORETIC APPROACH by LAURA BREWER B.A., The University of Georgia, 2007 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS ATHENS, GA 2014 © 2014 Laura Brewer All Rights Reserved COGNITIVE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN LINGUISTIC AND MUSICAL SYNTAX AN OPTIMALITY THEORETIC APPROACH by LAURA BREWER Major Professor: Keith Langston Committee: Jonathan Evans Jared Klein Electronic Version Approved: Julie Coffield Interim Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia December 2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am extremely grateful to my committee, Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Semantic Integration Processes at Different Levels of Syntactic Hierarchy During Sentence Comprehension: an ERP Study
    Neuropsychologia 48 (2010) 1551–1562 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Neuropsychologia journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/neuropsychologia Semantic integration processes at different levels of syntactic hierarchy during sentence comprehension: An ERP study Xiaolin Zhou a,b,c,∗, Xiaoming Jiang a, Zheng Ye a, Yaxu Zhang a,b, Kaiyang Lou d, Weidong Zhan c,e a Center for Brain and Cognitive Sciences and Department of Psychology, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China b Key Laboratory of Machine Perception and Intelligence (Ministry of Education), Peking University, Beijing 100871, China c Key Laboratory of Computational Linguistics (Ministry of Education), Peking University, Beijing 100871, China d Department of Applied Linguistics, Communication University of China, Beijing 100024, China e Department of Chinese Literature and Language, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China article info abstract Article history: An event-related potential (ERP) study was conducted to investigate the temporal neural dynamics of Received 25 April 2009 semantic integration processes at different levels of syntactic hierarchy during Chinese sentence reading. Received in revised form 6 December 2009 In a hierarchical structure, subject noun + verb + numeral + classifier + object noun, the object noun is con- Accepted 1 February 2010 strained by selectional restrictions of the classifier at the lower-level and of the verb at the higher-level Available online 6 February 2010 and the classifier is also constrained by the verb at the higher-level. Semantic congruencies between verb, classifier, and noun were manipulated, resulting in five types of sentences: correct sentences, sentences Keywords: with the single classifier–noun mismatch, sentences with the single verb–noun mismatch, sentences Syntactic hierarchy Semantic integration with the double-mismatch in classifier–noun and verb–noun, and sentences with the triple-mismatch in Classifier classifier–noun, verb–noun and verb-classifier.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributed Morphology and the Syntax/Morphology Interface
    Distributed Morphology and the Syntax/Morphology Interface David Embick and Rolf Noyer University of Pennsylvania ***Draft of December 9, 2005*** (To appear in G. Ramchand and C. Reiss eds., The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, Oxford University Press) 1 Introduction: The Syntax/Morphology Interface A theory of the syntax/morphology interface is first, a theory of how ‘words’ and their internal structure – the traditional domain of morphology – relate to the structures generated by the syntax, and second, a theory of how the rules for deriving complex words relate to the rules for deriving syntactic structures. A prominent line of research in this area consists of approaches assuming some version of the Lexicalist Hypothesis. For present purposes, this is the claim that (at least some) words are special in ways that e.g. phrases are not, and that this ‘specialness’ calls for an archi- tecture in which the derivation of words and the derivation of syntactic objects occur in different modules of the grammar (the Lexicon versus the syntax).1 While the ‘words’ derived in the Lexicon serve as the terminals in the syntactic derivation, there is a sharp division between syntax and mor- phology according to Lexicalist approaches of this type. In this way, the interface between syntax and morphology in such a theory is opaque or indirect: there is no reason to expect the structure and composition of ‘words’ to relate to the structure and composition of syntactic objects in any transparent or for that matter systematic fashion. A second line of research advances the hypothesis that ‘words’ are assembled by rules of the syntax.
    [Show full text]
  • When Linearity Prevails Over Hierarchy in Syntax
    When linearity prevails over hierarchy in syntax Jana Willer Golda, Boban Arsenijevic´b, Mia Batinic´c, Michael Beckerd, Nermina Cordalijaˇ e, Marijana Kresic´c, Nedzadˇ Lekoe, Franc Lanko Marusiˇ cˇf, Tanja Milicev´ g, Natasaˇ Milicevi´ c´g, Ivana Mitic´b, Anita Peti-Stantic´h, Branimir Stankovic´b, Tina Suligojˇ f, Jelena Tusekˇ h, and Andrew Nevinsa,1 aDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London WC1N 1PF, United Kingdom; bDepartment for Serbian language, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Nis,ˇ Nisˇ 18000, Serbia; cDepartment of Linguistics, University of Zadar, Zadar 23000, Croatia; dDepartment of Linguistics, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-4376; eDepartment of English, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo 71000, Bosnia and Herzegovina; fCenter for Cognitive Science of Language, University of Nova Gorica, Nova Gorica 5000, Slovenia; gDepartment of English Studies, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad 21000, Serbia; hDepartment of South Slavic languages and literatures, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, Zagreb 10000, Croatia Edited by Barbara H. Partee, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, MA, and approved November 27, 2017 (received for review July 21, 2017) Hierarchical structure has been cherished as a grammatical univer- show cases of agreement based on linear order, called “attrac- sal. We use experimental methods to show where linear order is tion,” with the plural complement of noun phrases (e.g., the key also a relevant syntactic relation. An identical methodology and to the cabinets are missing), a set of findings later replicated in design were used across six research sites on South Slavic lan- comprehension and across a variety of other languages and con- guages.
    [Show full text]
  • A Note on Huave Morpheme Ordering: Local Dislocation Or Generalized U20? ∗
    Chapter 1 A note on Huave Morpheme Ordering: Local Dislocation or Generalized U20? ∗ Hilda Koopman Version: August 28 2016. COMMENTS WELCOME. I will continue to work on these issues. To appear in: Gautam Sengupta, Shruti Sircar, Madhavi Gayathri Raman and Rahul Balusu, Per- spectives on the Architecture and Acquisition of Syntax: Essays in Honour of R. Amritavalli. (projected publication date: december 2016) 1.1 Introduction In the past few decades, different frameworks have emerged which claim that a single computational engine drives both syntactic and morphological composition, either to a large extent, as in Distributed Morphology (DM)), or entirely, as in frame- works based on antisymmetry (Kayne, 1994). Where morpheme order is concerned, Distributed Morphology (DM) attributes a major, but not exclusive, role to the syntax (see amongst others, Halle and Marantz (1993), Embick and Noyer (2007), Bobaljik (2012, 2015) and Harley (2012)). Mis- matches may arise between the output of the syntax and the actual morpheme order, Hilda Koopman UCLA, Department of Linguistics, 3125 Campbell Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543, e-mail: [email protected] ∗ This paper is dedicated to my friend Amrit: may our paths continue to cross in the future. I would like to thank Guglielmo Cinque, participants of my seminar on unifying syntax and mor- phology (UCLA winter 2016) for feedback and discussion, and Rolf Noyer and Yuni Kim for bringing Huave to bear on the theory, and their eagerness and openness to discuss and share their deep knowledge of the language. 1 2 Hilda Koopman in which case postsyntactic readjustment rules (Lowering, and Local Dislocation) apply to generate the observed linear orders.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relation Between Information Structure and Syntax
    The relation between information structure and syntax Radek Sim´ıkˇ Optional seminar winter semester 2011/2012 Department of Linguistics University of Potsdam 2 Contents Course description 5 1 Modules of grammar 7 1.1 Modularity .................................... 7 1.2 Standardpicture ................................. 8 1.2.1 Syntax................................... 8 1.2.2 Phonology................................. 9 1.2.3 Semantics ................................. 10 1.2.4 Pragmatics ................................ 11 1.2.5 Lexicon?.................................. 12 1.3 Whereisinformationstructure? . 12 2 Notions of information structure 15 2.1 Somepreliminaries ................................ 15 2.1.1 Absolute or relative? Categorical or scalar? . 15 2.1.2 Two types of IS effects: pragmatics and semantics . .. 15 2.2 CentralISnotions................................. 16 2.2.1 Givenness ................................. 16 2.2.2 Newness.................................. 18 2.2.3 Contrast.................................. 18 2.2.4 Background ................................ 19 2.2.5 Sentencetopic............................... 19 2.2.6 Comment ................................. 19 2.2.7 Discoursetopic .............................. 20 2.3 Summary ..................................... 20 2.4 FurtherIS-relatedissues . .. .. .. 21 2.4.1 Newnessvs.contrast ........................... 21 2.4.2 All-givensentences ............................ 21 2.4.3 Contrastivetopics............................. 21 2.4.4 Exhaustivefocus ............................
    [Show full text]